October 5, 2010

We are continuing with the series by Dr. Rick Flanders. If you are new to this series you might begin with Part One and then Part 2 for the groundwork.

One of the most hotly debated issues in the Lordship Salvation (LS) controversy revolves around the doctrines of salvation and discipleship. Most LS advocates see these as one and the same. LS advocates blur the lines of distinction, which creates an evangelistic message that conditions the reception of eternal life on a lost man’s upfront commitment to what should be the results of a genuine conversion in discipleship.

Dr. Rick Flanders wrote an article in 2007 titled, Salvation and Discipleship that addresses this vital issue in the Lordship Salvation controversy. The article first appeared at the Baptist College of Ministry website and with the author’s permission it is being reproduced here as a multi-part series. I am hopeful every guest will read this series with discernment and prayerfully consider the plain teaching of Scripture as Dr. Flanders presents it now in this third of five installments.

DISCIPLES OF JESUS OUGHT TO BECOME BELIEVERS IN JESUS
As we have seen in the book of John, disciples of Jesus are not necessarily believers in Him. In chapter 2, His disciples are recorded as coming to believe in Him, and in chapter 6 many of His disciples are said not to believe in Him. To be a disciple of Jesus is to be committed to follow Him. To believe in Him is to trust Him for one’s eternal salvation. There is clearly a difference between the two, but it is also clear in the Bible that discipleship and salvation are not disconnected. First of all, those who follow Jesus as Master and Teacher ought at some point to believe on Him as their Savior. If one is truly committed to follow the leading, the teaching, and the will of Jesus Christ, he will be brought to the place where he sees his need to believe on Him.

Today there are many who seek to follow Jesus, but have not yet trusted Him completely for their own salvation. We should not think that there are no real disciples of Christ among those who have joined sacramental churches or affiliated with monastic orders or entered the Christian ministry, while not understanding the glorious truth of justification by faith in Christ alone. Many sincere religionists are disciples but not believers. However Christian discipleship was planned to lead to saving faith.

The men whom Jesus chose to be His apostles found that if they would follow the teaching of their Master they must recognize that His central teaching had to do with Who He is. “I am,” He said again and again, “the Bread of Life” (John 6), “the Light of the World” (John 8), “the Good Shepherd” (John 10), “the Resurrection and the Life” (John 11). He did not say that He gave them the bread of life; He said he was that Bread which satisfies fully and forever. He did not say that He was a light in the world; rather He claimed to be the Light of the World. He said He was the Shepherd of the psalm, Whom David had identified as Jehovah Himself. He taught that He Himself is Eternal Life. When the unbelievers asked in John 8:25, “Who art thou?”, certainly His disciples must have asked themselves the same question. The answer, of course, is that Jesus said He is God and the only Way of salvation. Those who were really following Him must accept these claims, and trust Him for their own salvation. They will either do this or forsake their discipleship.

This is what happened with Judas. He followed Jesus until he realized that following Him would mean worshipping Him as God and believing in Him for salvation. Although he probably did call Him Lord (as many vainly do who have never been saved—remember Matthew 7:21) in the three years he followed Him, the Bible never records Judas calling Jesus “Lord.” He is recorded only calling Him, “Master” (as in Matthew 26:25 and 49), which means Teacher. Judas was a disciple, but he never came to believe on Jesus as Savior, and eventually he betrayed Him. Discipleship should lead to saving faith, and refusing to believe on Christ requires the abandonment of discipleship.

BELIEVERS OUGHT TO LIVE AS DISCIPLES OF JESUS
Even though the definitions of a believer in Jesus and a disciple of Jesus are very different, it does not follow that individuals have a legitimate choice about which one they will be. People who have salvation in Christ have a moral obligation to follow Christ in discipleship. One of the most important calls to discipleship in the Bible is Romans 12:1, which shows us this truth very clearly. “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” Notice that the call is addressed to believers (“brethren”). Saved people are called to discipleship in this verse. Notice further that the discipleship decision of dedication is voluntary even for believers (“I beseech you”). It is not automatic that a believer will follow discipleship. But then every saved person is morally obligated to give the Lord his total dedication (“by the mercies of God”).

All of Romans before chapter 12 is about the mercies of God by which we are saved. Now, because of them, we who have been saved are urged to live entirely for the One Who died for us. It is our “reasonable service.”

There is a sense in which a saved person (a believer) has a choice whether or not to live as a dedicated Christian (a disciple), and yet there is a sense in which he has no such choice. A Christian is morally obligated to follow Jesus all the way. Dr. John R. Rice used to preach about “What It Costs to Be a Good Christian.” This sermon was about discipleship. When a believer is not living for the One Who died for him, he is not a good Christian.

Living right is not an automatic result of being saved, although it is the duty of every saved person.

Salvation is the most important issue of life, but it is not the only issue. If it were, why would we need the epistles? Without questioning the genuineness of their salvation, Paul in his inspired epistles admonished believers to “Flee fornication” (1 Corinthians 6:18), “idolatry” (1 Corinthians 10:14), “the love of money” (1 Timothy 6:7-11), and “youthful lusts” (2 Timothy 2:22). The writers of the New Testament constantly call on the saved to repent of their sins, to be good Christians, to behave as disciples. Failure to live the Christian life does not prove that a person is not a Christian. Salvation does not settle all the issues of the Christian life, and wrong choices concerning other issues do not prove that the right choice has not been made about salvation. Surrender to God, love for others, honesty, purity, self-denial, submission to authority, and prayer are all issues true believers are to handle as disciples. When a believer is told that failure in discipleship proves that he isn’t saved, and that he needs to get “really saved” so that he will start doing right, the implication is that salvation is the only issue. If you are saved you will do right, some seem to say, and if you won’t do right you must not be saved. Misleading counsel like this can cause believers to neglect dealing with a sin problem while it confuses them about the plan of salvation! Believers must face the issues of discipleship without reverting to the issue of salvation if it has already been settled by faith in Christ.

In the book of the Acts, people became members of the church when they were baptized as believers (see 2:41-44). As the church grew, the membership was called “the multitude of them that believed” (4:32, 5:14). But these believers were also called “disciples” (6:1, 6:7, 9:1, 9:26, 9:36-38, 11:26). The reason is that when a person believes on the Lord Jesus and affiliates with His church (which every believer is supposed to do), he is “signed up,” so to speak, to be a disciple of Jesus. Will he succeed in this discipleship? We do not know for sure, but we know that discipleship is the only right life for a believer in Jesus Christ. Therefore church-members are called disciples, learners committed to following Christ.

11 comments:

Wow. This is a very meaty installment. There is much food for thought and many excellent points.

Still being a bit stuck on this one issue, I will again point out that this is yet another proof that "no-Lordship" salvation does NOT "inevitably" lead to licentious antinominanism, as MacArthur claims it does.

EVERY place in the word of God where someone refers to Christ as Master, they do so with an element of unbelief.

It was an interesting and fruitful study, and prepared me to understand what exactly people like 'Way of the Master' were aiming at in the naming of themselves. They made it pretty obvious.

Likewise when someone tells me about the gospel according to Jesus. Jesus said a lot of things most of which were law to show people their need of the gospel, but very little of it was the gospel. Now Paul on the other hand, he laid out the gospel plain and clear.

The gospel is defined as the means and grounds of our justification before God. One looks very hard to find that in a Master, but it is easily found in a Saviour.

I think the use of the word "Master" in the title of Ray Comfort's ministry was chosen to convey Christ's teaching role in the lives of believers. Though we wouldn't agree with any degree of "front loading" they incorporate into their witnessing/preaching presentations, their hearts are in the right place. While they want to win souls for Christ, they just need their theology corrected.

You are just going to have to pull out your Strong's concordance and go through them one by one.

There are a couple of 'Kurios' written by Paul that were translated as Master, which were done so to continue the play on words, but otherwise, all instances where another person refers to Christ as 'Rabbi' or 'didaskalos' contain the element of unbelief. You will just have to check them out one by one to see the pattern.

Another thing I looked at with the WOTM ministry is their serious lack of blood for justification. That is, the first time I scoured their site, the word 'blood' did not exist.

I brought it up to them and the result was that the particular word became used more, but never in the context of salvation. It was quoted once from 1 John 1:7 for the cleansing of sin, but the context of was mistakenly used as justification, not sanctification.

Have a lookhttp://www.google.com/search?q=blood+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.wayofthemaster.com%2F&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images

Like the rich young ruler who was very sincere, I don't doubt their sincerity or their good intentions, but we can't lose sight of the fact that the road to hell is often paved with good intentions. Good intentions do not save, the blood of Christ does.

Good observation. What I've also noticed among many LS advocates is the cross is seldom or not at all included in their evangelistic appeals. I know they personally believe in the cross work of Christ, but as I say you rarely find the cross mentioned or the central theme of their gospel presentation. It is replaced or overshadowed with surrender, commitment, obedience, etc.

The works of or promise to perform the works of a disciple in exchange for the reception of salvation/justification is the LS/WOTM message.

What I've also noticed among many LS advocates is the cross is seldom or not at all included in their evangelistic appeals.

Lou-

That was one of the first things I noticed about the LS gospel presentation too. There are exceptions though. Sometimes the cross is given a great deal of attention. But then they drop the ball by not having the sinner deal directly with that cross work. I recall Rick Holland doing a talk at one of the Resolved conferences which was all about the cross. He did a good job, really, until about the end. Near the end he stressed the word "many" in Hebrews 9:28 (that was his text). Though he went no further than that, by stressing the word "many" as he did he clearly implied that Christ died for many as opposed to all. I believe that was his covert intent. Shortly thereafter he made the appeal to the room to receive "Jesus as Lord and He will become your Savior." After preaching for 40+ minutes on the cross he then completely shifted gears by making the requirement for salvation the reception of Jesus as Lord. It felt totally out of place and had nothing to do with the rest of his talk. The natural thing to have done would have been to tell the room to place their faith and trust in Christ's cross work alone and not in any religious observances or whatever. Or something along those lines. But he did not do this. He inserted the "Lord" requirement which sounded completely out of place and contrived because he did not talk about the Lordship of Christ throughout the sermon.

Paul Washer is another one who can give a lot of time to the cross and Christ bearing the wrath of God for "God's people." He always qualifies Christ's cross work as being for "God's people." In the talk I am thinking of I don't remember him being too overly Lordshipy. Though he usually is.

The LS gospel is intended as a gospel of exclusion to weed out those who supposedly have not been elect to have a Savior die for them. Therefore in most cases of LS presentation the intent is to limit the gospel offer to those whom the Holy Spirit is supposedly regenerating unto belief which is only rightly expressed in submission to Christ as Lord. So whether or not they preach the cross, the terms of salvation will be submitting to the Lordship of Christ.

New From the Author

I have written the revised & expanded edition of In Defense of the Gospel to provide the biblical answers to Lordship Salvation. There are areas where one must balance soul liberty and Christian charity and agree to respect different views. The gospel, however, is not one of them. The works based theology of Lordship Salvation and its advocates must be vigorously debated, and biblically resisted. May God protect unsuspecting believers and the lost from the egregious errors of Lordship Salvation.

Followers

Copyright Notification

No part of this blog's articles may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means-electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise-without the prior written permission of the author(s), with the exception of brief excerpts in magazine articles and/or reviews.

Disclaimer

As a blog, this venue is open to comments by persons of differing opinions. The opinions expressed herein by various contributors do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of In Defense of the Gospel, or its owners.

Although we indulge differing opinions, we do not condone, and are not responsible for, any false or misleading statements of a libelous or defamatory nature. See 47 U. S. C. sec. 230 (c) (1).

Any slanderous remarks posted herein will be removed immediately upon notification of the offended party of specific untrue statements contained within a posted comment.